Gr no. L-9871 Atkins, Kroll Co vs. Cua Hian Tek January 31, 1958 facts
Matabuena vs. Cervantes March 31, 1971
Download 38.1 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- ISSUES
- GR No. L-35702
| Matabuena vs. Cervantes March 31, 1971
FACTS: GR No. 165879 Ching vs. Goyanko November 10, 2006 FACTS: Respondents Joseph Goyanko et al. filed with the Regional Trial Court of Cebu City a complaint for recovery of property and damages against Maria Ching, praying for the nullification of the deed of sale and of transfer certificate and the issuance of a new one. Goyanko et al. aver that they are the real owners of the property involved. They further contend that it was after their father‘s death that they found out that a contract of sale involving the same property has been executed by their father and common-law wife Ching. However, Ching claimed that she is the actual owner of the property as it was she who provided its purchase price. The RTC dismissed the complaint against Ching, declaring that there is no valid and sufficient ground to declare the sale as null and void, fictitious and simulated. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court and declared null and void the questioned deed of sale and TCT No. 138405. ISSUES: Whether or not the contract of sale and TCT No. 138405, in favor of the Maria Ching, was null and void for being contrary to morals and public policy HELD: The subject property having been acquired during the existence of a valid marriage between Joseph Sr. and Epifania dela Cruz-Goyanko, is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership. Moreover, while this presumption in favor of conjugality is rebuttable with clear and convincing proof to the contrary, the court find no evidence on record to conclude otherwise. The record shows that while Joseph Sr. and his wife Epifania have been estranged for years and that he and defendant-appellant Maria Ching, have in fact been living together as common-law husband and wife, there has never been a judicial decree declaring the dissolution of his marriage to Epifania nor their conjugal partnership. It is therefore undeniable that the property located at Cebu City belongs to the conjugal partnership. Assuming that the subject property was not conjugal, still the court cannot sustain the validity of the sale of the property by Joseph, Sr. to defendant-appellant Maria Ching, there being overwhelming evidence on records that they have been living together as common-law husband and wife. The court therefore finds the contract of sale in favor of the defendant-appellant Maria Ching null and void for being contrary to morals and public policy. The purported sale, having been made by Joseph Sr. in favor of his concubine, undermines the stability of the family, a basic social institution which public policy vigilantly protects.
Download 38.1 Kb. Share with your friends:
|